CPU/Mobo Nehalem preview

[fangface]

From Anandtech

We've been told to expect a 20 - 30% overall advantage over Penryn and it looks like Intel is on track to delivering just that in Q4. At 2.66GHz, Nehalem is already faster than the fastest 3.2GHz Penryns on the market today. At 3.2GHz, I'd feel comfortable calling it baby Skulltrail in all but the most heavily threaded benchmarks. This thing is fast and this is on a very early platform, keep in mind that Nehalem doesn't launch until Q4 of this year.

:hap2: :hap2:

Link- AnandTech: The Nehalem Preview: Intel Does It Again

 

[leomax]

Thats very healthy from a buggy unfinished platform.

 

[Chaos]

Final nail in AMD's coffin .

 

[ronnie_gogs]

AMD should think of some other strategy.... say enter into other markets as I Intel is beating it up in proccy market....

Me no business analyst but I think if it concentrated on Gfx market and Mobo markets it would do better...also entering Console market is not a bad idea...

I would say...AMD would make much better consoles than Microsoft or maybe even Sony

 

[YoGi-Sama]

Final nail in AMD's coffin

Unlikely. Not that AMD will spring back from the "grave" situation it's in... but If they keep fixing Phenom and deliver next architecture [at least] competitive enough price-performance wise, then AMD can survive long enough.

Offcourse, if they want to repeat the Athlon glory then they either need miracle or a mistake from Intel... latter is highly unlikely to happen (looking the things from Intel's front).

On Nehalem.. well, Intel is really doing great. And if anyone remember the Core 2 previews which made great buzz before launch... looks like Intel is on track to repeat that chapter.

 

[muzux2]

OMG! Copy cat of AMD's technology in Nehalem..
Evil intel, u cant do dat!
I dont knw what AMD fans are thinking right now, as of me, im already feeling sme fever while reading this article..

 

[fangface]

Im a little worried about AMD at this point , Intel is just too strong at the moment. I dont think AMD is waiting for miracles to save them or Intel to trip up and give them a chance.. AMD needs to get its act together fast!

Bottom line- the consumer is still benefiting from all these advances that Intel is making :hap2: , lets just hope AMD catches up soon.

 

[SidhuScorpion]

Incredible!!! :fear: , Get ready for AMD 9850 under 75$ :bye2:

AMD DOOMED

Good work Intel, If AMD is not doing good, it doesnt mean we bash Intel all time :no: , Intel deserve respect

 

[YoGi-Sama]

OMG! Copy cat of AMD's technology in Nehalem..

Evil intel, u cant do dat!

If you're referring to IMC (Integrated Memory Controller), then I pity your ignorance. AFAIR, Intel used IMC in long back in one of their pre-pentium processor (I'm not sure which processor, but they did use it for sure). So it wasn't AMD who invented it or did it first.

Secondly, it's a common practice in industry to license technologies (even from competitors). So, when you say that someone is being copycat or stealing techs, make sure you get your facts right.

Intel did create crappy products once... that doesn't mean that they deserve to be bashed forever. Learn to give credit where it's due.

.... and I hope you're reading that article thoroughly. Cause you should know that despite the similar technology, Intel has improved it's solution way better than AMD's. Despite being similar structure to Phenom, Nehalem has no doubt better implementation. So it's AMD that's lacking innovation right now in CPU arena.

 

[muzux2]

If you're referring to IMC (Integrated Memory Controller), then I pity your ignorance. AFAIR, Intel used IMC in long back in one of their pre-pentium processor (I'm not sure which processor, but they did use it for sure). So it wasn't AMD who invented it or did it first.

Secondly, it's a common practice in industry to license technologies (even from competitors). So, when you say that someone is being copycat or stealing techs, make sure you get your facts right.

Intel did create crappy products once... that doesn't mean that they deserve to be bashed forever. Learn to give credit where it's due.

.... and I hope you're reading that article thoroughly. Cause you should know that despite the similar technology, Intel has improved it's solution way better than AMD's. Despite being similar structure to Phenom, Nehalem has no doubt better implementation. So it's AMD that's lacking innovation right now in CPU arena.

no man idon't think so, AMD was first to have IMC, care to post link dude:tongue:

 

[abbY]

AMD was the first with IMC.

Intel is Goliath and AMD is David .. and AMDavid has no hope in there Nehlam is gonna be verrrrry fast.

 

[leomax]

Get yer facts right,its 386sl,486sl,after that there was timna. combined with ideas from DEC.

 

[hatter]

Me want one of these... but it will be expensive in absence of a proper competitor

 

[YoGi-Sama]

its 386sl,486sl,after that there was timna.

Exactly.... TIMNA, that's what I had read about.

So Muzux2, you were saying.... ???

 

[muzux2]

huh!
Then why intel killed timna family cpu's??
Is nt dat they were unsuccesful wid IMC & AMD was first to hve succesful IMC solution in the market. :clap:
It took intel then 8 years to build IMC in Nehalem.. LOL

 

[muzux2]

@iGO
huh!
Then why intel killed timna family cpu's??
Is nt dat they were unsuccesful wid IMC & AMD was first to hve succesful IMC solution in the market. :clap:
It took intel then 8 years to build IMC in Nehalem..:bleh:

 

[fangface]

@iGO

huh!

Then why intel killed timna family cpu's??

Is nt dat they were unsuccesful wid IMC & AMD was first to hve succesful IMC solution in the market. :clap:

It took intel then 8 years to build IMC in Nehalem..:bleh:

muzux2 - Can you tell me what difference it makes that AMD has the first successful IMC in the market? Last time i checked, Intel processors were wiping AMD in almost all performance benchmarks (unfortunately for AMD ) , without a IMC.

I am not an intel fanboy, I still have a good old Athlon 2600+ (Non X2 , Non 64 bit :bleh: ) rig running strong.

I would love to see AMD get back on its feet and kick some butt, but right now they are lagging intel by a big margin.

 

[muzux2]

@ fangface

With IMC, AMD has trashed all Intel Cpu's in 'memory based benches' say faster mem latency, mem read & write speeds..

 

[YoGi-Sama]

Then why intel killed timna family cpu's??

If you read available articles on Timna, majority of fault to timna's demise was rambus. If Rambus was able to curb the cost, we would have seen amazing stuff coming out of Intel. But that didn't happen, so Intel had to use brigde chip (MTH, or Memory Translation Hub) to link Rambus memory controller with less expensive SDRAM memory. Though that solution worked, due to some serious bugs Intel decided to scrap the entire Timna project.

You can read about Timna here : Intel Timna - Google Search

Specifically : PC World - Intel Kills Timna

About ten years ago the company created an integrated product line, Brookwood notes. Intel shipped both the 386SL and a related 486SL after some delays. But vendors stayed away, and by 1992 Intel had cancelled the line.

With IMC, AMD has trashed all Intel Cpu's in 'memory based benches' say faster mem latency, mem read & write speeds..

AMD's processors were good options against Netburst architecture... they were faster for clock to clock (even sometimes faster than higher clocked Pentiums), they were more energy efficient and competitively priced.

But came Core architecture and started punching Athlons black and blue. No matter what fanboys (like you) said... the fact was in real-world performances Intel burried AMD.

Read following blog article : Computing Intensive: IMC Myth

To summarize the whole thing...

AMD did not invent IMC nor it was first to come out with processors with IMC.

But it is true that they had successful "run" with IMC.

Intel had 386SL and 486SL available in market and technically it was working IMC solution, but vendors didn't show much interest. Even though Timna was killed before birth, technically the solution was working. It was changed due to business reasons (use of MTH) and later killed due to technical problems in MTH.

As for your memory benchmarks, if you look at bigger picture... excelling in one area didn't matter after all, as Core ruled in overall performance.

-------------

Although bit off-topic... your stance over AMD reminds me of another fanboy rant we kept hearing before Phenom. That, Intel's quad-core solution is just a patch job. AMD's "native" quad-core is better solution, yada yada yada.

I had expressed my views over that long back in one thread...

let's quote my statement here :

I sometime really don't get the point of this argument about "true" quad-core... what's wrong with two patched dual-cores?

I understand someone might bring up interconnect between two dual-cores are serious bottleneck and so. But the catch here is that the way Intel CPU's work, on FSB. So as long as Intel is providing enough bandwidth via FSB/Cache it doesn't matter. Despite people despising Intel's "patch-work" on quad-core, benchmarks and real-world performance testing has already proved that Intel's quad-core works fine and scales well.

In fact, due to it's IMC AMD can easily put two Phenom dual-cores without worrying about CPU interconnect bandwidth.

While it is true that at some point in future FSB is not going to prove as most effective way to scale bandwidth, Intel already sees that. With Nehalem Intel brings back IMC to it's processors and Direct-Connect architecture (which they call QuickPath).

What you need to understand is, with so-called patching two Dual-Cores Intel can scale well with it's superior production setup and can introduce newer products faster than competition's. While we still await AMD's answer to Core (so far Phenom's early previews look like competitive product than knock-out punch to Core), Intel is progressing faster to better die-shrinks and able to deliver as per their roadmap (even bit earlier than promised, look at penryn).

So when Phenom launches, it has to pit against 45nm Intel CPUs with it's 65nm die. It might stand eye-to-eye to Intel's offering in performance, but Intel already has almost a lead of Year. Intel has made it self good name with enthusiast & gaming community and you don't need to be geek to understand that 45nm with proven & mature architecture (with newer tweaks) will give Intel edge over new architecture on 65nm by AMD.

For example, just look at the TDP on Phenom 9700 : 2.6GHz - 125W

and here's TDP on similarly clocked Yorkfield Q9450 : 2.66 GHz - 95W

Sorry for my rambling... but I really find the wholeTrue Quad-Core argument pointless unless numbers can prove it wrong in real-world.

But Phenom came and didn't stir things up. In fact, because of the overall talk of "true" and "native" quad-core by fanboys and AMD itself... the performance of Phenom (the very first batch) was sort of embarrassment. Today, after AMD started cleaning up the mess and fixing things Phenom (not to mention some aggressive price cuts), Phenom is at least considerable alternative to Core processors. Again, lion's share for that goes to AMD's spider platform.

-------------

Just to make it clear to you. I am NOT Intel fanboy. I've not used AMD chip ever in my life, but that wasn't because I am fan of Intel.

I want AMD to stay in game as much as any AMD fanboy would want. Because it's always good to have alternative and give each company a reason to innovate.

But I prefer to see things rationally and not following something blindly. I had used crap called Pentium D for sometime, and believe me I almost made a switch to AMD... had it not been Core's launch. Like the popular saying goes... "Ugate Suraj ko sab salaam karte hai" (Everyone salutes rising sun) !!

 

[muzux2]

If you read available articles on Timna, majority of fault to timna's demise was rambus. If Rambus was able to curb the cost, we would have seen amazing stuff coming out of Intel. But that didn't happen, so Intel had to use brigde chip (MTH, or Memory Translation Hub) to link Rambus memory controller with less expensive SDRAM memory. Though that solution worked, due to some serious bugs Intel decided to scrap the entire Timna project.

You can read about Timna here : Intel Timna - Google Search

Specifically : PC World - Intel Kills Timna

u r quite correct.. i'll take my word " copycat" back..

i believe IMC are certainly not a novelity in the embedded world & arguing about who copied is absoulutely
pointless.. its only perfromance which matters & AMD has to do something right now!